As everyone knows, the major media organizations were quick to defend Islam after the Fort Hood Massacre. What is now becoming clear is that some were deliberately deceptive in their efforts to portray Islam as peaceful. For instance, CNN wasted no time publishingÂ an article by “the Muslim Guy,” Arsalan Iftikhar, who began his article as follows:

Most of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, “Anyone who kills a human being … it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. … If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind.”

Accordingly, it should come as little surprise to any reasonable observer that when Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan recently committed his shocking acts of mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, America’s Muslim community of over 7 million felt an added sense of horror and sadness at this senseless attack against the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces.

The problem, of course, is that Iftikhar has to massacre 5:32 in order to pretend that it provides proof that Islam forbids killing. In context, and with the omitted sections of the verse reinserted, the verse proves that the Fort Hood Massacre was entirely consistent with the teachings of the Qur’an. The proof is in this video:

More:

Toxic Taqiyya

On May 10th, 1994, just a few months after signing the Oslo Accords (September, 1993),Â Yasir Arafat addressed an assembly of MuslimsÂ in a Johannesburg mosque Â whereÂ he justified his actions by explaining: “This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh.”Â Â And he concluded by calling on the worshipers “to come and to fight and to start the jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

What did those words mean?

Muhammad signed a 10-year truce with the Arabian pagan Quraysh tribe in the city of Mecca (the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, 628 AD). At the beginning of the second year of that ten-year period he found a pretext to justify breaking the truce. He pounced on the Quraysh in a surprise attack, conquered Mecca and defeated the Quraysh, who were not prepared for more hostilities since they were honoring the 10-year accord and assumed that Muhammad was too.Â Since then this agreement between Muhammad and the Quraysh has been an example for Muslims world-wide of how to trick the enemy in wartime. In other words, Arafat explained to his Muslim audience that he gave his word to President Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin, and signed the Oslo Accords, only because he planned to annul his commitments and attack Israel as soon as it was expedient for him to do so.Â He lied to Clinton and Rabin; but once he was out from under the scrutiny of western media and in the comfort of a Muslim group whose support he could assume, he told the truth to his Muslim audience.Â He was not aware that his speech was recorded.

Arafat’s lies to Clinton and Rabin were an excellent example of a 1,400 year old Muslim tradition ofÂ Taqiyya: tricking the enemy in wartime by offering a false peace or truce, but preparing to attack once the enemy lets down its guard.

TaqiyyaÂ (lit. ‘caution’) denotes theÂ deceit or dissimulationÂ used by Shiites, who may lie and even commit blasphemous acts to conceal their religion when they are under threat ofÂ persecutionÂ from majority Sunnis. It has long been used in its other manifestation, as an integral part of Muslim military strategy, employing trickery and deceit to mislead the enemy (for a detailed discussionÂ see John Esposito’sÂ The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford University Press, 2003).

The Qur’an in a variety of verses (2:225, 3:28, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28, and 66:2) establishes the religious legitimacy of breaking oaths, lying, unilaterally violating treaties, and generally scheming against non-Muslims. Â Allah Himself is described as “the best of schemers” (3:54, 8:30, 10:21), and Muhammad declared, as a justification for murdering unarmed prisoners after offering them safe passage, “war is deceit” (see theÂ Hadith collection ofÂ Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, nos. 268-271).Â So during the negotiations of Oslo I and II, Arafat’s willingness to acquiesce to Israeli demands was merely his acting as a good Muslim warrior, usingÂ taqiyya, deceit in warfare, to put his enemy at a disadvantage.

Arafat’sÂ taqiyyaÂ began long before Oslo. For decades he told the West that he was just a scruffy little guy doing his best to keep his rough-neck boys (Fatah, the PLO, the el-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas, inter alia) under control so that he could make peace with Israel; even as he called in Arabic for a million martyrs to march on Jerusalem to destroy Israel and create their “Palestine…from the river to the sea”.Â Similarly he told the west that he was trying to rein in Hamas and enforce the ban on terrorism to which he had agreed in the Oslo Accords.Â Yet, as became apparent when Israel invaded hisÂ muqataÂ (military compound) in Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, and translated thousands of documents taken from his files and computers, Â he in reality had partnered with Hamas, funded Hamas, armed Hamas, and aided in Hamas’ terrorism.Â Far too many in the West fell for his “good cop – bad cop” act.

Hamas too uses theÂ taqiyyaÂ ruse at will, frequently telling the West that it really wants peace, but reminding its followers in Arabic that they must continue the ‘struggle’ (the terror war against Israel) until victory or martyrdom.

Examples of taqiyyaÂ are endless.Â To the west the PA explains its refusal to negotiate with Israel as a result of Israel’s settlement construction.Â But the reality is revealed inÂ the Palestine Strategy Group’s 2009 proposal for a strategy of “intelligent resistance”Â Â (i.e., the priority of law fare, boycott campaigns and other anti-Israel propaganda over terrorism) as a means of continuing the struggle against Israel.

Fatah leader, Abbas Zaki, has repeatedly revealed the duplicity of the PA leaders. On April 9thÂ 2008 he told NBN TVÂ the following: “The PLO has not changed its platform even one iota….The PLO proceeds through phases…..Allah willing we will drive them out of all of Palestine.” Â The following yearÂ he revealed on Lebanese TV: “When we say that the settlement should be based upon these (1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows, that the greater goal (destruction of Israel) cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.”Â Â He then cautioned his listeners: “It is not acceptable policy to say that we want to wipe Israel out. Don’t say these things to the world, keep it to yourself.”

Palestinian Media Watch recently published “Deception: Betraying the Peace Process,” which documents the hate-speech, hate-preach and hate-teach promoted by PA officials and Arab media, and the manner in which they lie about it to the west. The book,Â recently reviewed in the NY TimesÂ (but seeÂ hereÂ for a very harsh but accurate critique of the reviewer’s minimization of the PA’s strategy of deceit), lists many examples of deceit.

Despite its public pronouncements in English, the PA glorifies terrorists, libels Israel and promotes a culture of violence. Palestinian Authority television programs, including those on children’s quiz shows, portray cities along Israel’s Mediterranean coast, like Haifa, Jaffa and Acre, as being part of “Palestine.” Some news reports refer to Israel as the Palestinian interior.

A constant theme is the Palestinian denial of any Jewish historic or religious connection to Jerusalem or the Holy Land (seeÂ hereÂ for a summary and rebuttal of this Israel-denial).

A most recent example of Israel-denial is anÂ op-ed in the Washington PostÂ (12.21.2011) by the PA’s political representative in Washington, in which he promotes a series of fantasy assertions that Palestinians lived in Jericho 10,000 years ago, that Jews and Arabs lived in harmony until 1948, that Israel is to blame for Arab terrorism, and that the PA today has agreed to a two-state solution (for an accurate discussion of this newÂ taqiyya, the invention of Palestinian ancient history, seehere).

It is nothing more than common sense that deception of the enemy during war is a commendable tactic and an important part of an effective military strategy.Â But in the context of war with Muslim powers, there is a critical difference that must be taken into consideration: jihad is eternal and “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only.”Â Therefore, every truce, treaty or cease-fire agreement made by a Muslim entity with a non-Muslim entity is nothing more than a treaty made to be broken, as soon as the Muslim side finds it useful to do so. This being the case, the most frightening aspect of PalestinianÂ taqiyyaÂ is that our own leaders are repeatedly deceived by it, or worse, turn a blind eye to it. Recall thatÂ taqiyyaÂ is a strategy of deceit against adversaries in wartime. By makingÂ taqiyyaÂ such a major part of their strategy, PA leaders and Hamas demonstrate that, rather than trying to make peace, they are engaged in continuous war against Israel. So much for the peace process.

A Catholic anecdote says that Satan’s greatest victory was getting the world to believe that he did not exist. Did Satan learn aboutÂ taqiyyehÂ from Allah, or the opposite?

Instead of trying to be “bold” and tackling a “controversial” topic, innate apologists would do better to simply remain silent.

In “Secret Muslims: Are Muslims allowed to hide their faith?” inÂ Slate, July 3, Juliet Lapidos wonders “whether there’s a history of Muslims who deny their faith publicly while maintaining it privately.” She concludes:

Yes, if you’re a Shiite; maybe, if you’re a Sunni. According to Chapter 16, Verse 106 of the Quran, “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbeliefâ€”except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faithâ€”but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” Shiites cite this verse to justify taqiyya, a religious dispensation by which persecuted Muslims may hide their beliefs.Â But Sunni scholars have a more equivocal take. Some reject taqiyya as unacceptable hypocrisy and evidence of cowardice: Muslims shouldn’t fear other humans, only Allah. Others argue that concealment is warranted under life-threatening circumstances.

This is inaccurate. For starters, the author quotes a secondary verse to justify taqiyya; the primary verse (to say nothing of some very straightforwardÂ hadiths) that all the ulema have relied on to articulate doctrines of deception states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers; whoever does so shall have no relationship left with Allahâ€”unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (3:28).

Note: this verse says nothing about forced conversions. So why does Lapidos evoke 16:106, the one that does? As the remainder of her article makes clear, she wants to portray Islam as justifying dissemblingÂ onlyÂ when non-Muslims try to forcefully convert Muslimsâ€”that and nothing else.

She goes on to claim that “Sunni scholars have a more equivocal take” regarding the validity of taqiyya, as opposed to Shias. While it is true that, historically, Shia minorities living among Sunni majorities have had more need to dissemble (tells you something about residing with Sunnis, no?), that is simply a quirk of circumstance. In other words, now that Sunnis are minority groups living among infidel majority groups, such as in the West, they, like Shias surrounded by Sunnis, have developed perhaps an even greater need to hide their true beliefs.

As for the notion that “some [Sunnis] reject taqiyya as unacceptable hypocrisy and evidence of cowardice…. Others argue that concealment is warranted under life-threatening circumstances,” the very first lines of one of the few Arabic books wholly dedicated to treating the doctrine of taqiyya, calledÂ al-Taqiyya fi al-IslamÂ (“Taqiyya in Islam”), by Islamic studies professor Sami Makarem, unequivocally states in its opening page:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Nearly every Islamic sect has agreed to it and practices it….Indeed, we can go so far as to say that mainstream Islam practices taqiyya, and that those few sects that do not practice it are aberrant, diverging from the mainstream. (p.7)

Lapidos continues later on in her article:

Outside the Islamic world, there are two major historical examples of Muslims practicing taqiyya. During the 16th century, Catholic authorities in Spain gave the local (predominantly Sunni) Muslim population an ultimatum: Convert or leave the country. Some of the converts (called Moriscos by the Spanish) became sincere Catholics while others perpetuated their faith in private. Crypto-Muslims attended church services on Sundays but used Aljamiadoâ€”an Arabic alphabet for transcribing Romance languagesâ€”to secretly pass down Islamic traditions. In antebellum America, slaves from West Africa, many of whom were Muslim, were forced to convert to Christianity. As in medieval Spain, some slaves converted sincerely while others maintained their religion in secret.

Lapidos maintains that the “two major historical examples of Muslims practicing taqiyya” were when Christians tried to forcefully convert themâ€”again, as if that’s the sole purpose of Muslim deceit. (Of course, subtly injecting the image of “intolerant,” “slave-driving” Christians goes a long way in justifying, or at least further clouding, the issue of taqiyyaâ€”especially for an audience such as Slate’s.) But aside from the fact that current events are full of Muslims engaging in taqiyya, and not because they fear for their faithâ€”from “reneged” peace treatises with Israel and other infidel entities to terrorist-linked organizations and people like CAIR and Tariq Ramadan constantly proclaiming that “Islam means peace”â€”history in fact furnishes numerous anecdotes where Muslims deceived, and not because anyone was trying to force them into another religion, starting with Islam’s prophet Muhammad himself:

Apart from his famous assertion that “War is deceit,” Muhammad allowed his followers to feign goodwill towards infidels, solely in order to treacherously strike them down, as inÂ the following hadith:

As for Islam’s ulema,Â Taqiyya in IslamÂ quotes from a number of the most prominent, the vast majority of whom agree that taqiyya is not just limited to preserving one’s faith. Here, for instance, is the premiere exegete al-Tabari: “Allah Almighty has forbidden the believers from being friendly with infidels or from taking them as confidants in place of other beliersâ€”except when they are clearly outnumbered by the infidels, in which case let them display outward friendliness, while holding onto their faith” (p.22).

After quoting from a number of other authoritative ulema, Makarem concludes that “There is no major difference between what al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydawi, and al-Jilalan all say in regards to taqiyya” (p.26).

Note: Tabari recommends that Muslims feign goodwill towards infidelsÂ notÂ when the latter are trying to forcefully convert them, but because they are natural enemies, at least from a Muslim perspective. So, far from being a question of preserving their faith, taqiyya is to be practiced when Muslims are in the minority and living among majority infidelsâ€”precisely the scenario we have today in the West.

The Slate article tries to pull a fast one: it admits to taqiyya, but then quickly portrays it as “controversial” and only used as a last resort from Muslims trying to escape (Christian) persecution. Depicting an incomplete picture is worse than no picture, and Slate would have been more objective to stay silent on the matter. At any rate, I am more inclined to heeding the words of Islamic scholar Sami Makarem, who has written an entire book on taqiyyaâ€”not to mention the plain words of al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydawi, indeed, Muhammad himselfâ€”as opposed to half truths coming from one Juliet Lapidos.

Sam ShamounÂ of Answering Islam recently forwarded me an article titled “Tawriya: Islamic Doctrine of ‘Creative Lying’? Response to Raymond Ibrahim,” appearing on a website called Muslim Debate Initiative, and written by one Shadid (“Severe”) Lewis in response to my recent exposition onÂ the doctrine of tawriya. Although this responseâ€”poorly written, poorly arguedâ€”would normally be ignored, I address it for three reasons: 1) To date, it is the only rebuttal I have seen from a Muslim concerning tawriya; 2) Far from rejecting tawriya, it actually validates it (the author spends his time chasing red herrings, not disproving the doctrine); 3) It is a good example of the speciousness and sophistry employed by those who try to downplay or rationalize some of Islam’s more problematic doctrines, in this case, tawriya. (Note: Although Shadid’sÂ original articleÂ is littered with grammatical and punctuation errors, in the interest of readability, I have corrected the more egregious when quoting him.)

At the start, after informing readers that he “read the article of Raymond Ibrahim posted on Frontpagemag.com and I just had to respond,” Shadid argues that tawriya really “means deliberate ambiguity rather than creative lying.” Discerning readers understand such euphemisms change nothing about the doctrine.

After I pointed out that most Muslim scholars (or ulema) are agreed that tawriya should not be used to commit an “injustice,” I added “‘injustice’ as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards.” To this, Shadid responds: “Says who? None of the sources he [me] cited said as only defined by Sharia. A commonly known wrong is a commonly known wrong just the same in Islam (stealing, cheating, murder, etc. is wrong and accepted as such in Islam).”

First, of course the Muslim authorities do not bother pointing out that they mean justice and injustice as defined by Sharia; that’s a given. Likewise, anyone familiar with Islamic law and doctrineâ€”presumably Muslims like Shadid himselfâ€”know that many of Islam’s views on “right” and “wrong” do not agree with “universal standards.” One example: Islamic law holds that any Muslim who converts out of Islam and refuses to return is an apostate to be executed. Whereas in Islam, such executions are deemed “just,” from a Western point of view, which acknowledges religious freedom, they are unjust. In this context, then, it is “just” to use tawriya (lying) to enable the execution of an apostate.

Next, Shadid distracts the issue by making irrelevant points: “Sheikh Al-Munajjid, another source cited by the article’s author, said excessive use of puns leads to lying. So the claim that this [tawriya] can be used whenever and wherever is a lie in itself.”

Yes, at the very end of his fatwa, after giving many proofs validating tawriya, Munajjid warned that too much tawriya can “lead one to slip into a lie,” meaning that, by getting caught up in one’s own dissembling game, one can end up committing an actual lieâ€”one that is not “technically” true, a criterion of tawriyaâ€”without realizing it. More to the point, saying that some ulema warn against using tawriya too much, does not change the fact that Islam permits lying through tawriya, and that it is up to the individual Muslim to decide how much is too much.

Shadid continues: “Al Munajjid said this [tawriya] is used for embarrassing circumstances. Yet the author would have us believe Muslims can use this to lie in business transactions, and to take peoples’ property and other commonly accepted wrong activities.”

Seems like Shadid is engaging in his own bit of tawriya here: yes, Munajjid did say tawriya can be used for embarrassing circumstances, but he mentioned embarrassment as anÂ exampleÂ of, not theÂ sole justificationÂ for, tawriya. Rather, the two criteria he gave, and which I noted in my original article, are 1) that the words literally fit the alternate meaning, so that the lie is technically true, and 2) that there is a “legitimate need” (i.e., a Sharia compliant need).

Caught up in his own convoluted logic/tawriya, Shadid next contradicts himself: “Another source cited by the articles author which he ignores is: Al-Nawawi, who said the deliberate ambiguity [tawriya] is permissible if the need arises or aÂ legitimate interestÂ …”â€”there it is again, “legitimate interest.” In other words, Nawawi, just like Munajjid, is simply another Muslim scholar who confirms that tawriya is permissible if it serves a “legitimate interest,” i.e., if the lie enables something deemed “legitimate” according to Sharia.

Then there are Shadid’s ridiculous arguments:

Mr. Ibraham told us Muhammad is recorded saying “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram,Â Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).

However the source he cites clearly isÂ Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30). Did you catch it? The source is about AL TAQIYYA not about TAWRIYA. And taqiyya deals with a situation only when a Muslim’s life is in immediate danger [not true] and they utter words of disbelief because they are threatened with being killed or tortured. Thus this citation does not support any proof for “creative lying.”

Apparently Shadid’s point is that any quote contained in a book that is not specifically devoted to the topic of the quote, is to be ignored. This is tantamount to saying “I reject any quote on jihad, regardless of the authority, unless it comes from a book with the word ‘jihad’ in its title. But if the title of the book is, say, ‘Islamic Law,’ or ‘War in Islam,’ then the quote on jihad is inadmissible.”

Better for you, Shadid, to address the actual quote itselfâ€”that your prophet’s mission was rooted in obfuscation, according to his own wordsâ€”rather than quibble about the title of the book containing the quote.

Those familiar with this hadith can quickly see that Ibrahim has added his own conclusion about this hadith not endorsed by the Islamic position. No where is it taught that this hadith teaches for one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell.

Yet, he fails to mention that this hadith figures in the literature devoted to justifying tawriya, including Munajjid’s fatwa. And if this hadith does not teach “one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell,” then what is its significance, why does Muhammad teach to hold the nose, and why are the ulema referring to it in the context of tawriya? After all, wasn’t Shadid himself arguing earlier that tawriya is to be used only for “embarrassing” situationsâ€”and what’s more embarrassing than this?

In light of all the above, readers are free to conclude whether, as Shadid put it, my article on tawriya is “a clear example of how these haters just make up blatant lies to taint Islamic teachings and draw false conclusions based on their over zealous bias against Islam,” or whether Shadid’s entire rebuttalâ€”which strains out a gnat while accepting that Islam permits lyingâ€”is itself an example of obfuscation.

“Underst. Muh.” Page 251 ‘… If Islam is “missunderstood,” shouldn’t Muslims welcome questions and answer them to remove the misunderstandings?

There are many verses in the Qur’an that require clarification.

“Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them.” (2:291) “Fight them, until there is no more dissent and religion is that of AllÃ¢h” (2:193) “The vilest of animals in AllÃ¢h’s sight are those who disbelieve.” (8:55)

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks (beheading) and smite all their fingertips off them.” (8:12) “Verily, the unbelievers are unclean.” (9:28), etc.

How can Muslims explain these verses? Aren’t these and many similar Qur’anic teachings, responsible for Islamic violence? Most religions have had violent histories. Islam is the only religion that teaches violence in its holy book. Why? …’

Ali Sina

“Taqiyyah: the Holy Deception” Page 56

“… Practicing Muslims come to the West and pretend to be moderates. They say everything you want to hear but secretly plan for your destruction. They smile; are friendly and amiable; they even pretend to be patriotic. However, their only objective is to make Islam dominant. They talk the talk, but will not walk the walk.

Lying is a strategy to advance Islam is called taqiyyah, or “holy deception.” Under taqiyyah, a Muslim is allowed to lie and say anything to pull the wool over the eyes of the non-Muslims and deceive them.

One of the major objectives, and a persistent tactic of those most skilled in taqiyyah, is to downplay the threat of Islam. The goal is to fool potential victims that jihad is not directed at them. In his book, No god but God, Reza Aslan engages in this Islamic art of deception, when he argues: “What is taking place now in the Muslim world is an internal conflict between Muslims, not and external battle between Islam and the West.” He further writes: “The West is merely a bystander – an unwary yet complicit casualty of a rivalry that is raging in Islam over who will write the next chapter in its story.” [88] NY Times, pdf (34 KB) Sorry, looks like we have built New York, Pentagon, London, Madrid and Beslan in the crossfire between Muslims …”

“Where Are We Headed” Page 255

“… Muslim immigrants are flooding Western countries with the intent of taking over these lands. Shortsighted, unsrupulous politicans bend over backwards to appease them and praise Islam as a “religion of peace” to vie for their votes. Some have gone so far as to pass “blasphemy laws” in order to ban criticism of Islam.

… To defeat Islam in the political sphere we need public awareness. Politicans are not leaders. They are followers …”

“Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them.” (2:291) “Fight them, until there is no more dissent and religion is that of AllÃ¢h” (2:193) “The vilest of animals in AllÃ¢h’s sight are those who disbelieve.” (8:55) “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks (beheading) and smite all their fingertips off them.” (8:12) “Verily, the unbelievers are unclean.” (9:28), etc.

How can Muslims explain these verses? Aren’t these and many similar Qur’anic teachings, responsible for Islamic violence? Most religions have had violent histories. Islam is the only religion that teaches violence in its holy book. Why? …’

32. For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had: saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’ssovereignty) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

Who are the corruptors (and mischief-makers in some translations)?

“Non-Muslims ‘cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.’ said Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati last week at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran to commemorate the ‘martyrs’ of the Revolutionary Guards and the war against Iraq (1980-88).”(From http://www.adnki.com/index_English.php?ln=1, IRAN: ZOROASTRIAN LAWMAKER FACES SLANDER CHARGES, November 28, 2005)

‘The Jews seem neither to respect God nor his creation. Their own holy books contain the curse of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to be ‘God’s chosen people.’” (From http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/schlussel_026.htm)

As everyone knows, the major media organizations were quick to defend Islam after the Fort Hood Massacre. What is now becoming clear is that some were deliberately deceptive in their efforts to portray Islam as peaceful. For instance, CNN wasted no time publishing an article by “the Muslim Guy,” Arsalan Iftikhar, who began his article as follows:

Most of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, “Anyone who kills a human being … it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. … If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind.”

Accordingly, it should come as little surprise to any reasonable observer that when Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan recently committed his shocking acts of mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, America’s Muslim community of over 7 million felt an added sense of horror and sadness at this senseless attack against the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=barDTNhEz-4[/youtube]
The problem, of course, is that Iftikhar has to massacre 5:32 in order to pretend that it provides proof that Islam forbids killing. In context, and with the omitted sections of the verse reinserted, the verse proves that the Fort Hood Massacre was entirely consistent with the teachings of the Qur’an. The proof is in this video above.

Update:

A comment from Hugh Fitzgerald:

Fitzgerald: When Obama Channels Bush, Or, Qur’an 5.32 Without 5.33

“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” — from the speech by Barack Obama

Is that really what the “Holy Koran” teaches? It’s true, there is a verse in the Qur’an, taken verbatim from an earlier Jewish text, that says “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind,” etc.

But that verse, verse 5.32, in the Qur’an is followed by another verse, one that Barack Obama carefully or carelessly — it hardly matters which — chose to overlook, and by overlooking, mislead not his Muslim audience (who were no doubt pleased he left out, just as any Muslim apologist for Islam would have left out, the following verse 5.33) but rather, all of the world’s Infidels, which includes 99% of the American people, whose welfare he is supposed to keep foremost in mind, for the right instruction and the protection of the American people is his solemn duty.

We’ve been here before, of course. When Barack Obama quotes 5.32 and leaves out 5.33, he is merely channeling George Bush. For Bush, in his deep respect for the “religion” of Islam, liked to quote the same Qur’anic passage, that is, 5.32. The passage, of course, one of the more appealing ones in the Qur’an, was lifted wholesale from the Jewish text of the Mishnah. Barack Obama might have recognized that, but he didn’t dare — for if he had said it, it would have infuriated Muslims. They don’t want to have the Qur’an’s sources in other, prior monotheisms, revealed, and they don’t even want the elements, such as the djinn, borrowed wholesale from pre-Islamic Arab pagan lore, connected to their original sources. For the Qur’an is for Muslims never to be subjected to the kind of historical analysis that was done for both Judaism and Christianity by the practitioners of what is called the Higher Criticism, beginning with Julius Wellhausen and other German and English Protestant scholars of the mid-to-late 19th century.

What Bush always left out, and what Obama left out today, was the following passage, 5.33, that was added by the composers of the Qur’an and that they did not lift from any Jewish text. This is 5.33:

“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land” (Qur’an 5:33).

And who do those who take their Islam most feelingly to heart and most thoughtfully to mind think are the people who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land”? Why, it’s non-Muslims, it’s the Infidels, the ones who do not submit to Islam but for some strange reason hew to their own non-Muslim beliefs, and their own legal and political institutions and founding documents (such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France, and the Constitution of the United States in this country). Those institutions and which founding documents are flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam, and thus those who continue to support them are people who, in the Muslim view, are not acting defensively but offensively. Anyone who resists Islam is making offensive war on Islam, and thus they are those who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land” — so that, according to 5.33, that follows the appropriated Jewish text of 5.32, they should be “killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.”

Fitzgerald: Cat’s out of the bag
Those at the Emory Wheel are reduced to this transparent nonsense of Taqiyya and Tu Quoque. How else can they proceed? They know what is in the texts. They know what states, societies, families suffused with Islam are taught. They know the tenets. They know the attitudes. They are well used to the atmospherics. They just don’t know how to handle those Infidels who also know those texts, those teachings, those attitudes, those atmospherics.

And there is nothing they can do to stop more and more Infidels, as they pick up their newspapers or turn on the evening news, from realizing how much of it is about this or that local manifestation of the worldwide and permanent Jihad — which can only get worse, and examples of which will only proliferate. Those Infidels will find out, slowly and then more rapidly, in greater and greater numbers, about Islam. There is nothing Islamic apologists can do about this, try as they will to lie, or to hide, or to distract with irrelevancies, or by appeals to Western “guilt” and false claims of victimization. Islam itself, as the vehicle for Arab imperialism, is the most successful imperialist project in history, the force which caused whole peoples to jettison and ignore, or despise, their own histories, pre-Islamic or non-Islamic. In light of that, the raising of idiotic claims of “racism” will not forever prevent Infidels, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and all others, everywhere and not just here in this country, from finding out about Islam.

How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War
Here is an illuminating piece that you would do well to keep around for future reference: “How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War: Defeating Jihadist Terrorism,” by our old Jihad Watch friend, the great scholar Raymond Ibrahim in the Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2010:

Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam’s dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur’an is against believers deceiving other believers–for “surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar”–deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur’anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to the glorious end of Islamic hegemony under Shari’a, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims. In this sense, lying in the service of altruism is permissible. In a recent example, Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri publicly recounted a story where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew into converting to Islam, calling it a “beautiful trick.”

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya–not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal–sometimes superior–to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam’s code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

. . . continue reading . . . .

Understanding Taqiyya â€• Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah

by Warner MacKenzie/ Islam Watch

Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]

The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart. (See endnotes)

Like many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide ‘the enemy’.

A favoured tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; used to persuade the enemy that preparations for a raid were not aimed at them but at another tribe altogether. The fate in store for the deceived enemy target was an unexpected plunderous raid, enslavement of the women and death to the post-pubescent males.

The core foundation of hyper-masculine Arab culture is bound up in perceptions of “honour and shame”. At all times, he (it’s usually a male) must avoid having his face “blackened” by words or actions which are a slight upon, a challenge or affront to, his status in the family or broader social / tribal group. To be open, frank and forthright or to make self-damning admissions in his dealings (particularly with the infidel enemy) is to leave himself open and vulnerable to humiliating shame and to the subsequent disrespect from his peers. Tongues will wag in the bazaar’s coffee shops and rumours will rapidly spread that so-and-so has lost his “manliness” and status. In short, he is no longer worthy of deferential respect; to an Arab, this is worse than death itself.

The higher one is placed in the social order (or rather, on how important the individual perceives himself to be), the more imperative it becomes to strenuously avoid “loss of face”. The male’s perceived loss of honour and status, must be redressed and his face “whitened”, i.e. his honour regained and restored, at any cost; even to the extent of (as in the honour killing of daughters) murdering the person “responsible” for causing the initial humiliation. When taqiyya is used to avoid making an admission or concession it is simply an essential means of ensuring that ones honour and standing remain intact and untarnished. Blood feuds and vendettas, caused by an ancient humiliation of a long dead ancestor, can persist, fuelled and propelled by shame and honour, for generations. Muhammad, who is promoted as every Muslim’s exemplar, set the precedent for vengeful retaliation when he ordered the murder of those who mocked or satirised him and, as he was an Arab, caused him potential loss of face. [See link, “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society”]

Outwitting:

Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of ‘outwitting’. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.

The claim is often made that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English makes the meaning of what they say or write difficult or impossible to convey….this is simply another subterfuge. Keysar Trad has repeatedly claimed that Sheikh Hilali’s obnoxious, inflammatory and misogynistic comments have been “mistranslated”, misquoted or “taken out of context”. The aim of this ploy is to dilute or neutralise public opprobrium. The use of independent translators has, in the past, disproved his assertions. The Sheikh states what he believes to be correct according to Islamic precepts and his “interpreter” reconfigures the statement to make it palatable to the unwitting listener.

Consider the following statement by Mr. Trad on the February 24 2006.

Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, told Reuters that Australian Muslims

“But to continually single out the Muslim community like this is very unhelpful, it’s very divisive and it does stir up Islamophobia”,

Trad said.

“We’re proud to be Australian and our religion strongly stipulates that if you make an oath, whether it’s an oath of citizenship or any other oath, that you honour it, abide by it.”

However, the Prophet Muhammad seems to have a different idea on the subject.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:

“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ ”

Role playing as the victim:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the ‘the victims’. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and ‘outwitting’….. Defence by offence.

Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:

Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) ‘condemning’ the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences .

Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.

(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)

Interviewers would be better advised to ask the more precise question “do you believe in jihad against the unbelievers?

Questions relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will usually be diverted by either making outrageously wild conspiracy claims “the CIA did it to give the U.S. an excuse to attack Muslims,… Mossad was the perpetrator… No Jews came to work at the World Trade Centre on September 11” etc. or by making an irrelevant counter reference to “the plight of the Palestinians”,.. Iraqis,.. colonialism,.. the crusades, or US foreign policy’s support for Israel” as the ‘root causes’ of terrorism.

Then, of course, there’s the ever popular, specious allegation that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.

Diversionary “tu quoque” response ploys usually start with the words “but” or “what about…?” in an attempt to turn, and transfer an equal culpability back on their interlocutor.

Demanding ‘evidence':

Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as ‘cognitive denial’ by repetitive and persistent demands of ‘where is the evidence!’ and ‘prove it!’ whenever there is Muslim complicity in terrorist acts, evidence, which they know very well, for security or legal sub-judice restraints, can not be disclosed. If indeed the “evidence” were to be publicly presented, they would then move on to the familiar “prejudicial to the defendant receiving a fair trial–grounds for a mistrial” default position.

Tactical denial:

Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a subject under discussion can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will flatly deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms. For example, “It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorist”; this semantic argument is purely a matter of definition, because radical Islamists don’t define their violent attacks as terrorism, but jihad. (i.e. holy war in the way of Allah) .Another popular assertion is that ‘Islam forbids suicide’, which is true, but by virtue once again of definition, irrelevant, because suicide bombings are regarded as “martyrdom operations” and are therefore not forbidden, but on the contrary, admirable and praiseworthy. Muslim spokesmen are also fond of using extreme hyperbole. Their refutations regularly include the word “percent”. e.g. “I am 150% certain that Jews orchestrated September 11”…. “I guarantee the accused is 200% innocent”.

There’s a common and oft repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).

Islamic falsehoods are echoed uncritically by Western politicians and other apologist dupes, for example “A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great and noble religion”. This timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the ‘hijacking’ of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic ‘spokesman’ in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has become an “accepted fact” repeated, ad nauseum, ever since.

A related theme that “a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism” is utterly irrelevant as terrorism is always perpetrated by ‘small minorities’ or more accurately small groups or cells. Surveys consistently reveal that between 10-15% of all Muslims sympathise with the aims and methodology of this radical strain of Islam which has been “hijacked”. This means, that within an estimated world population of 1.2 billion Muslims, there are 120-180 million people prepared to fund, facilitate and in general, give moral and financial assistance to the jihadists….. “a small minority”?….you decide!

The indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam. Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.

Taqiyya as impressions and perception management

Pathos and the tactical use of children:

Australian television viewers may recall that interviews with terrorist suspects raided by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and AFP (Australian Federal Police) frequently featured women in hijabs holding small children or a crying baby as they plaintively protested their husband’s innocence and attested to his innate piety, decency and kind-hearted nature.

Trembling fingers and quavering voices pointed out damage, disruption and disarray to the family home. In some interviews the suspect / father holds the child, whilst denying any involvement in, or knowledge of, radicalism .

Sheikh Hilali’s daughter, in a newspaper interview, played the taqiyya pathos card by claiming that, because the cold northern winter was imminent, her father was travelling to Lebanon to “hand deliver” thousands of blankets to “orphanages” and homeless victims of the war between Israel and Hizbollah.

In the same Israel /Hezbollah war, a photojournalist filmed a Lebanese man, strewing, for the purpose of emotional impact, the contents of a large cardboard box full of children’s stuffed toys amongst the wreckage and debris. This was obviously for the benefit of a large contingent of international TV film crews who were about to be taken on a guided tour of the bombed buildings later that morning.

Photos of carefully placed baby’s bibs and dummies (pacifiers) also appeared to be extraordinarily abundant on the internet, as were “staged” photos of a “body” being removed from the piles of collapsed concrete. One sequence of photos clearly shows the “body” in question, alive and well, walking around with his “rescuers” before and after the “retrieval” of his dusty, “lifeless body”. This is taqiyya by imagery!

The above are examples of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception management and are designed to, dupe, play on the emotions of, and elicit sympathy from, the compassionate, unwitting public.

Taqiyya and the Deceptive definition of Jihad:

The contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is “Jihad of the sword” and not the peaceful internal struggle for spiritual improvement as their spin-doctors would have us believe. Islamic fundamentalists consider jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam, a binding duty and integral to the faith. Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state to become a better person is taqiyya. In contemporary terms, Jihad means – HOLY WAR – against the unbelievers and it is in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals and other radical preachers use and refer to jihad.

The study of taqiyya is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Its use ranges from the issuing of false terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al Qaeda in the form of ‘intelligence chatter’ for the purpose of throwing national defence groups into confusion. Terrorist in captivity resort to taqiyya during interrogation. It is most frequently used by Muslim ‘spokesmen’ whilst intentionally making misleading public statements concerning Islam and terrorism.

The Arabs have a story which exemplifies subtle, semantic dissimulation (taqiyya) perfectly. Legend has it that Mohammed’s nephew, son-in-law and future Caliph, Ali, was sitting on a stool outside his dwelling when one of his allies ran red-faced and gasping into the village and hid in Ali’s home. Perceiving that the man was being pursued, Ali promptly got up and sat on another nearby stool. A few minutes later, a group of angry pursuers ran into the encampment and asked Ali if he had seen the man they were pursuing. Ali responded with the statement “AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS STOOL I HAVE SEEN NO ONE”

This story demonstrates why nothing an Islamist says can be taken at face value. Every statement and utterance needs to be thoroughly analysed, or “unpacked”.

After yet another violent incident in Sydney, involving “Males of Middle-Easter Appearance”, a spokesman for the Muslim community appeared on a Sydney television evening newscast. In the brief soundbight he defensively declared “our religion teaches us that we must be kind to one another” ….and indeed it does, it simply depends on how we are to interpret the words “one another”, as these verses from the Quran demonstrate:

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. – (Q 48:25)

Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.

Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers*. – (Q48:29)

So, was this spokesman lying?

Or was he telling the truth?

The answer is both, YES,… and NO! –Or, perhaps neither, and if you are confused by this apparent contradiction?,. You’re meant to be, because he was practising taqiyya; ……where the devil is ALWAYS in the detail.

* The precise identity of the “unbelievers” in the above references requires no further explanation.

Endnotes

1. Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.

When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

2. Bukhari Vol 3: 857 “Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba”:

That she heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”

“When Abu Musa arrived (at Kufa as a governor) he honored this family of Jarm (by paying them a visit). I was sitting near to him, and he was eating chicken as his lunch, and there was a man sitting amongst the people. Abu Musa invited the man to the lunch, but the latter said, “I saw chickens (eating something (dirty) so I consider them unclean.” Abu Musa said, “Come on! I saw the Prophet eating it (i.e. chicken).” The man said “I have taken an oath that I will not ea (chicken)” Abu Musa said.” Come on! I will tell you about your oath. We, a group of Al-Ash’ariyin people went to the Prophet and asked him to give us something to ride, but the Prophet refused. Then we asked him for the second time to give us something to ride, but the Prophet took an oath that he would not give us anything to ride. After a while, some camels of booty were brought to the Prophet and he ordered that five camels be given to us. When we took those camels we said, “We have made the Prophet forget his oath, and we will not be successful after that.” So I went to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle ! You took an oath that you would not give us anything to ride, but you have given us.” He said, “Yes, for if I take an oath and later I see a better solution than that, I act on the later and gave the expiation of that oath”

5. Bukhari Vol 6: 138 Narrated Aisha:

“That her father (Abu Bakr) never broke his oath till Allah revealed the order of the legal expiation for oath. Abu Bakr said, “If I ever take an oath (to do something) and later find that to do something else is better, then I accept Allah’s permission and do that which is better, (and do the legal expiation for my oath ) “.

– “Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them.” (2:291)
– “Fight them, until there is no more dissent and religion is that of AllÃ¢h” (2:193)
– “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks (beheading) and smite all their fingertips off them.” (8:12)

According to Shari’aâ€”the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstancesâ€”deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves, based on Qur’anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.

This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi’i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities. Taqiyya allowed the Shi’a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.

However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear thattaqiyya is not limited to Shi’a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya:

“Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.”

Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi’i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi’a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi’a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemiesâ€”Christian infidelsâ€”even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that madetaqiyya integral to Shi’ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.

The Articulation of Taqiyya

Qur’anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: “Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Godâ€”unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

“If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believersâ€”except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.”

Regarding Qur’an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Qur’an, writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”

Other prominent scholars, such as Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and worseâ€”for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemyâ€”anything short of actually killing a Muslim: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelityâ€”even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”

Following is my comment from that posting on Reza’s description of Muhammad’s early raids in Medina:

In No god but God, Reza Aslan describes Muhammad’s practice of robbing trade caravans as follows, “Just to make sure the Quraysh got Muhammad’s message challenging Mecca’s religious and economic hegemony over the Peninsula, he sent his followers out into the desert to take part in the time-honored Arab tradition of caravan raiding. In pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was a legitimate means for small clans to benefit from the wealth of larger ones. It was in no way considered stealing (italics mine), and as long as no violence occurred and no blood was shed, there was no need for retribution. The raiding party would quickly descend on a caravan – usually at its rear – and carry off whatever they could get their hands on before being discovered. These periodic raids were certainly a nuisance for the caravan leaders, but in general they were considered part of the innate hazards of transporting large amounts of goods through a vast and unprotected desert.”

So robbing caravans carrying the foodstuffs entire Arab tribes depended upon for survival was just a matter of boys will be boys, like university students on spring break in Daytona? Tell that to Amr bin al-Hadrami. He was leading a trade caravan carrying dry raisins, leather, and other goods when Muhammad’s marauders decided to attack. Historian Ibn Ishaq records that the Muslims determined to kill as many caravan personnel as possible before making off with the booty. Amr was killed with an arrow, the others were taken prisoner and later released for ransom, and Muhammad was given one-fifth of all the stolen merchandise.

The truth is that most of the people who migrated with Muhammad from Mecca to Medina were poor ex-slaves with no skills or trade. They joined illiterate Arab tribespeople in Medina who had migrated north from Yemen a few generations before and both worked for and stole from the Jewish majority who had lived in Medina for six centuries and were excellent farmers and tradesmen. The Muslims quickly put themselves in opposition to the Jews, and rather than meeting their economic needs by forming their own trade caravans found it easier to plunder the caravans of others.

It is a misstatement of facts to say that patience under attack
was taught at Makkah, because there was no other alternative, and
that the right to repel attack came at MadÃŸnah. The attitude was no
doubt changed but that change was due to the change of circumstances.
At Makkah there was individual persecution and patience
was taught. If the conditions had remained the same at MadÃŸnah,
the Muslim attitude would have been the same. But individual
persecution could no more be resorted to by the Quraish of
Makkah, as the Muslims were living out of their reach. This very
circumstance fanned the fire of their wrath, and they now planned
the extinction of the Muslims as a nation. The sword was taken up
to annihilate the Muslim community or to compel it to return to
unbelief. That was the challenge thrown at them, and the Holy
Prophet had to meet it. The Holy Qur’Ã¥n bears the clearest testimony
to it. The earliest permission to repel attack is conveyed in
words which show that the enemy had already taken up the sword
or decided to do so: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on
whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely AllÃ¥h
is able to assist them â€” Those who are driven from their homes
without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is AllÃ¥h. And
if AllÃ¥h did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches
and synagogues and mosques, in which AllÃ¥h’s name is much
remembered would have been pulled down. And surely AllÃ¥h will
help him who helps His cause” (22:39, 40). The very words of
this verse show that it is the earliest on the subject of fighting, as
it speaks of a permission being given now which evidently had
not been given up to this time. This permission was given to a
people upon whom war was made by their enemies (yuqÃ¥talâˆ‚na);
and it was not a permission to make war with people in general
but only with the people who made war on them, and the reason
is stated plainly “because they are oppressed” and “have been
expelled from their homes without a just cause.” It was clearly an
aggressive war on the part of the enemies of IslÃ¥m who thus
sought to exterminate the Muslims or to compel them to forsake
their religion: “And they will not cease fighting with you until
they turn you back from your religion if they can” (2:217). It was
a holy war in the truest sense because, as stated further on, if war
had not been allowed under these circumstances, there would be
no peace on earth, no religious liberty, and all houses for the worship
of God would be destroyed. Indeed there could be no war
holier than the one which was needed as much for the religious
liberty of the Muslims as for the principle of religious liberty
itself, as much to save the mosques as to save the cloisters and the
synagogues and churches. If there had ever been a just cause for
war in this world, it was for the war that had been permitted to the
Muslims. And undoubtedly war with such pure motives was a
jihÃ¥d, a struggle carried on simply with the object that truth may
prosper and that freedom of conscience may be maintained.
The second verse giving to the Muslims permission to fight runs
as follows: “And fight in the way of AllÃ¥h against those who fight
against you, and be not aggressive; surely AllÃ¥h loves not the
aggressors” (2:190). Here again the condition is plainly laid down
that the Muslims shall not be the first to attack, they had to fightâ€”
it had now become a dutyâ€”but only against those who fought
against them; aggression was expressly prohibited. And this fighting
in self-defence is called fighting in the way of AllÃ¥h (fi sabÃŸlillÃ¥h),
because fighting in defence is the noblest and justest of all
causes. It was the cause Divine, because if the Muslims had not
fought they would have been swept out of existence, and there
would have been none to establish Divine Unity on earth. These
were the very words in which the Holy Prophet prayed in the field
of Badr: “O AllÃ¥h! I beseech Thee to fulfil Thy covenant and Thy
promise; O AllÃ¥h! if Thou wilt (otherwise), Thou wilt not be worshipped
anymore” (Bu.56:89). The words fi sabÃŸli-llÃ¥h are misinterpreted
by most European writers as meaning the propagation of
IslÃ¥m. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Muslims were
not fighting to force IslÃ¥m on others; rather they were being fought
to force them to renounce IslÃ¥m, as shown by (2:217) quoted
above. What a travesty of facts to say that war was undertaken by
the Muslims for the propagation of IslÃ¥m!
It is sometimes asserted that these injunctions, relating to defensive
fighting, were abrogated by a later revelation in ch. 9. Yet anyone
who reads that chapter cannot fail to note that it does not make
the slightest change in the principles laid down earlier. Fighting
with idolaters is enjoined in the ninth chapter, but not with all of
them. In the very first verse of that chapter, the declaration of
immunity is directed towards only “those of the idolaters with
whom you made an agreement” not all the idolatersâ€”and even in
their case an exception is made. “Except those of the idolaters with
whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in
anything and have not backed up anyone against you, so fulfill their
agreement to the end of their terms; for AllÃ¥h loves those who keep
their duty’’ (9:4). This shows that there were idolatrous tribes on
friendly terms with the Muslims, and the Muslims were not allowed
to fight with them; it was only the hostile tribes who broke their
agreements and attacked the Muslims that were to be fought
against. And individual idolaters, even if belonging to hostile tribes,
could still have safety, if they wanted to enquire about IslÃ¥m, and
were given a safe conduct back home even if they did not accept
IslÃ¥m: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek protection by thee, protect
him till he hears the word of AllÃ¥h, then convey him to his
place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not”
(9:6). The idolater who stood in need of protection evidently
belonged to a hostile tribe, because the friendly tribes, being in
alliance with the Muslims, had no need of seeking protection of the
Muslim government. Thus even a hostile idolator was to be sent
back safely to his own tribe and not molested in anyway, as the
words of the verse show. The idolaters with whom fighting was
enjoined were those who had violated treaties and were foremost in
attacking Muslims, as the words that follow show: “If they prevail
against you, they respect neither ties of relationship, nor of
covenant in your case” (9:8). “Will you not fight a people who
broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger and
they attacked you first” (9:13). Thus chapter 9, which is supposed
to abrogate the earlier verses, still speaks of fighting only against
those idolaters who “attacked you first”, and this is the very condition
laid down in earlier verses, such as (2:190).
So-called “Verse of the Sword”
Notwithstanding that ch.9, as shown above, does not go beyond
what is contained in the earliest revelations on the subject of war,
the fifth verse of that chapter is called by some people “the verse of
the sword”, as if it inculcated the indiscriminate massacre of all
idolators or unbelievers. The misconception is due to the fact that
the words are taken out of their context, and a significance is forced
on them which the context cannot bear. The following words occur
in the 5th verse: “So when the sacred months have passed away,
slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5). But similar words
occur also in the earliest revelation on the subject: “And kill them
wherever you find them” (2:191). In both places it is the context
which makes it clear as to the identity of the persons regarding
whom the order is given. In both cases those against whom the
order is given are the people who have taken up the sword and
attacked the Muslims first. It has already been shown that the
injunction to fight against the idolaters, as contained in the opening
verses of the 9th chapter, relates only to such idolatrous tribes as
had made agreements with the Muslims and then broken them and
had attacked the Muslims, and not to all idolatrous people, wherever
they may be found in the world. If only we read the verse that
precedes the fifth verse, not the shadow of a doubt will remain that
all idolaters are not spoken of here. For the fourth verse, as quoted
already, states that those idolaters were not within the purview of
the order who had remained faithful to their agreements. The order
was therefore directed against specified idolatrous tribes, the tribes
that had made agreements with the Muslims and broken them
repeatedly, as expressly stated in (8:56). It is a mistake to regard the
order as including all idolatrous people living anywhere in the
world or even in Arabia. And if the verse preceding the so-called
“verse of the sword” makes a clear exception in case of all friendly
idolatrous tribes, that following it immediately makes a clear
exception in favour of such members of idolatrous hostile tribes as
ask the protection of the Muslims (see v. 6, quoted in the preceding
paragraph). And then continuing the subject, it is further laid down
that the order relates only to people “who broke their oaths and
aimed at the expulsion of the prophet and they attacked you first”
(9:13). With such a clear explanation of the fifth verse contained in
the preceding and following verses, no sane person would interpret
it as meaning the killing of all idolaters or the carrying on of unprovoked
war against all idolatrous tribes.
To read the remaining article, plz view the book:http://www.ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/jihadinislam.pdf

The Tu Quoque Fallacy, put simply, is the fallacy of responding to a criticism with –

“You also do those bad things you are accusing me of doing”

– instead of actually dealing with the points of the criticism.

This deflection of criticism is a type of obfuscation that evades the responsibility of addressing the arguments put forth by the critic.

The Tu Quoque is used by the object of the criticism. Thus, if a non-Muslim criticizes a Muslim for the Islam he follows, the most common deployment of Tu Quoque comes out of the mouth of the Muslim, attempting to turn the tables of the criticism back on his accuser, the non-Muslim critic.

Now, what about the non-Muslim who defends Islam? You know the type â€” they are all around us in the West; indeed, I maintain they are the mainstream majority.

To explain their use of the Tu Quoque Fallacy, I have coined the term the “Ego Quoque Fallacy”. The variation Ego Quoque means literally “Me too”.

When a non-Muslim, in a dialogue with a fellow non-Muslim, criticizes Islam or Muslims, and when that fellow non-Muslim happens to be deformed by PC MC, he will tend to respond to the criticism of Islam or Muslims by jumping in to defend them with a variation on the Tu Quoque Fallacy. Since, of course, the non-Muslim is not a Muslim, but rather belongs to the same civilizational or cultural community as his fellow non-Muslim, I call his similar ploy the Ego Quoque Fallacy. It is, in effect, saying:

“Well, we also do the bad things we are accusing them of doing”

or:

“Well, we’re no better than they are.”

This is, on the surface, a rather self-sacrificing posture, potentially noble and laudable and open-minded. In the context of PC MC, however, it lurches into the territory of the incoherent, the inane, the perverse, the hypocritical, the treasonous and the suicidal â€” particularly when the object of the criticism (Islam) is an outrageously anti-liberal system which is nourishing innumerable fanatics around the globe who want to destroy us if they cannot subjugate us to their evil totalitarianism.

Thus, in our politically correct times, we commonly encounter the normal perversity of a non-Muslim Westerner coming righteously to the defense of Islam and Muslims whenever they are criticized, by employing the Ego Quoque Fallacy – usually manifested in various questions meant to be self-evidently rhetorical:

What about the Crusades?
What about the Spanish Inquisition?
What about the witch-burnings?
What about Christian wars of religion?
What about slavery?
What about Western Colonialism?
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What about Vietnam?
What about the “genocide” of the American Indians?
What about Abu Ghraib?

Etc., ad nauseam.

Indeed, President Obama did exactly this in his speech on April 6, 2009, before the parliament of Turkey when, in the context of the subject of the attempted genocide of Armenians by Turks which he with gingerly (yet transparent) adroitness sidestepped, he invoked “the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.”

The purpose of these falsely rhetorical questions, of course, is to counter the criticism of Islam and Muslims by saying, “We the West have been just as bad, so who are we to throw stones…?” The fundamental incoherence of this tactic rarely dawns on the person using it: Is he saying that we used to be as bad as Muslims, but are no longer? â€” in which case why does he maintain opposition to our criticism of Islam? And does this not matter?

Or is he saying that we are still as bad? On what basis then does he believe in any ethic worth pursuing sociopolitically, if he thinks everybody, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are equally bad? On what basis is ethical progress to be pursued when all sides are equally bad? Where does the blueprint for progress come from?

The answer to that last question can not be rendered coherently when we try to explain our fellow PC MCs, for their heads and hearts are in a muddle about this. For our fellow Leftists, however, the question acquires increasing clarity the more radical they are (leading to the fork of Leftist Fascism or Leftist Communism): the blueprint for progress in their case derives from the utopian complex of modern Gnosticism, which seeks to destroy their own wicked West and replace it with, or transfigure it into, an immanentized eschaton. Beyond Leftist Revolution against the West lies a further, ultimate position, which may be crystallizing in our time: conversion to Islam â€” i.e., joining the Jihad against one’s own West. The Leftist terrorist of the 80s, “Carlos the Jackal”, for example, has precisely discovered this sublime way to express the self-hate he has been cultivating all his life. In his special prison cell outside Paris, he has converted to Islam, and has written a book about how the Communist ideal for world transformation is best realized through Islam.

At this juncture is where another twist on the Tu Quoque Fallacy is illuminated, for which I came up with a second coinage: the Ego Peior Fallacy. The word “peior” in Latin means “worse”. The term thus means, effectively:

“We are worse than they are”.

The Ego Peior is the ulterior position beneath the incoherence of the Eqo Quoque. No longer is the PC MC Westerner trying to argue that “We are just as bad as they are”. What he really intends is something even stranger: “We are actually worse than they are.”

Thus, often those who employ the Ego Quoque are not merely positing a level playing field of “Well, we are just as bad as they are”. Oftentimes what is lurking beneath the apparent equivalency of the Ego Quoque is the deeper Ego Peior â€” “We are worse than they are.”

The logical conclusion of this pathos can only be either to willingly submit as dhimmis to the superior civilization of Islam, or to convert to Islam and join the Jihad against one’s own worse West.

This, however, is an option â€” psychologically and subculturally â€” only for the disaffected Leftists of the West; the PC MCs of the West tend to prefer to try to maintain an incoherent balance between cultivating a glibly profound self-hatred and self-shame of their own West, while at the same time blithely enjoying â€” and even sustaining â€” its advantages.

The Ego Peior beneath the Ego Quoque is fundamentally incoherent, and the clearest formulation that can be wrested from it is the startling, and absurd, paradox I discovered to lie at the heart of Montaigne’s self-critique of his own West:

“We are worse because we are better.”

The fundamental incoherence of Ego Quoque can be kept in suspense virtually forever, as the interlocutor deploys other diversionary tactics either out of a muddled head deformed by PC MC, or out of a darker antipathy to the West that festers in Leftism.

In sum, the Tu Quoque/Ego Quoque/Ego Peior Complex does not really even rise to the level of a logical fallacy: it resembles more the elementary tactic of childish evasion, further warped by the neurosis of PC MC, or the psychosis of Leftism. All these deficiencies do not, however, prevent it from being used regularly and nearly universally, among our millions of fellow Westerners whenever one has the impertinence of raising criticisms of Islam and of its followers.

Let me mention, as a shiite muslim, that taqiyya was not meant as a way for muslims to sin with impunity but telling lies. Even today, shia like myself are considered apostates by many wahabis and treated badly.
In the past, we sometimes had our lives threatened for apostasy in less tolerant societies in the muslim world, and my ancestors generally had to lie and say they were sunni so that they would not be killed at times on their travels.
I cannot help this history, we need to be able to tell a lie to save my own life, but I think it is obviously very calculating and wrong to try and convince people that you shouldn’t listen to what I have to say whenever it is inconvenient because of how you misinterpret this.
Thanks for reading this.

How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War
Posted on May 18, 2012 by Eeyore
Middle East Quarterly

by Raymond Ibrahim

Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010, pp. 3-13

Translations of this item:

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyyaâ€”not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equalâ€”sometimes superiorâ€”to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam’s code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

The Doctrine of Taqiyya

Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam’s dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur’an is against believers deceiving other believersâ€”for “surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar”[1]â€”deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur’anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to the glorious end of Islamic hegemony under Shari’a, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims. In this sense, lying in the service of altruism is permissible. In a recent example, Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri publicly recounted a story where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew into converting to Islam, calling it a “beautiful trick.”
Click to continue:

Taqqiya is only permitted if a muslim is in a death situation and only can save himself by denouncing islam but doesn’t mean it in his heart. e.g (Tafsir, Bulak 1323, xxiv, 122): “If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, in order to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe. But of course it will be used against us (sigh).

ibroman,
Do NOT play the victim here!!!!! You muslims are directly responsible for your own fate, and your whining, dishonest, and self-flagellating post demonstrates that muslims like you represent a major danger to society because you cannot accept the responsibilities for YOUR own actions.

In 539 BC, King Belshazzar of Babylon saw a dismembered hand-written four prophetic words on the wall. This “handwriting on the wall was finally interpreted by the prophet Daniel as predicting the fall of the kingdom. He was right. Babylon fell to the Medes-Persians that very night.”

Like the “handwriting on the wall” that Prophet Daniel had interpreted, there are four Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are taqiyya, tawriya, kitman and muruna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims.

Mohammed famously said, “War is deceit.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Nr.268). The Quran boasts that Allah is the “master of all scheming” (Quran 13:42) and that he is “profound in his machinations” (Quran 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, “We are used to your lying. Knock it off!”

Taqiyya

Taqiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense (illaan tattaqoo minhum tuqatan (Quran 3:28).

This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation.Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.”

Reliance of the Traveller. Section r8.2 PERMISSIBLE LYING. The Prophet said: “He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar”). Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.
Tawriya

Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying” or where appropriate “lying under oath”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.1 If one swears “I will not eat this wheat,” but then makes it into flour or bread (and eats it), one has not broken one’s oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.5 When a person swearing an oath about something (in the future, affirming or denying that it will occur) includes the expression “in sha’ Allah (“if Allah will”), before finishing the oath, then the oath is not broken in any event if he thereby intends to provide for exceptions.

How does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of“those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”.

A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” In your mind,you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim.

Kitman

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts.

Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant,contradictory verse.

Here is an example: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256)

“Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?”(Quran 3:83)

Another example:“Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Quran 22:39)

“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Quran 9:5)

And another example: â€žAnyone who kills a human being… it shall be as though he has killed all mankind. …If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all mankind…“ (Quran 5:32)

â€žThe punishment of those who wage war against Allah… that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned;“ (Quran 5:33)

Muruna

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Quran 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by abetter one or similar.”

Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected.

The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during their off-times while taking classes in the U.S. to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon,and the White House. Many Americans believe Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner at least in part to burnish her security credentials so she could infiltrate the highest levels of the Administration.

The implications of these highly-honed tactics of deception could be enormous for unassuming Western societies. Twenty years ago, psychologist Paul Ekman wrote an insightful book, “Telling Lies”, which demonstrated that people give off recognizable clues when they are practicing deceit. Their consciences cause them, involuntarily,to sweat or raise their voices or make other recognizable gestures.

However, Dr. Ekman’s research was exclusively with people from Western cultures. Muslims, on the other hand, show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam. Because any Western person who has raised children knows almost intuitively when someone is lying, so they assume they can do that in all cases. Unfortunately, those same Western people can be easily duped by Islamic deceit because there are no tell-tale signs in the deceiver.

Another example of playing muruna till perfection is Mosab Hassan Yousef, the â€žSon of Hamas“

Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a jailed Hamas terrorist leader and MP,Sheikh Hassan Yousef, the most popular figure in that extremist Islamic organization. Mosab, as a young man, assisted his father for years in his political activities.
He converted to Christianity and operated under cover in the service of Israel’s intelligence agency for a decade. Yousef reveals this information in his book,

Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices.

Mosab however, did not convert to what the West would recognize as Christianity, but to a fiery, Palestinian brand of the faith that is vehemently anti-Israel. According to Mosab, his main goal in coming to the U.S.is to infiltrate the main source of international support for Israel: the American church. From an interview with Al-Arabiya:
“During my tours in universities and even churches, [I found] the real support for Israel stems from the church in the West….. We need to understand the difference between “revenge” and “resistance” and once the Palestinians do, we will have our victory against Israel.”

Hopefully, this article will be a wake-up call to the unsuspecting infidels. Trust but verify – as was an old American strategy in dealing with potentially hostile parties – is the way to go in dealing with Islamists.

In the West, expressions such as “racist,” or in Muslim countries “apostate,” are intended to silence citizens and keep them muzzled. In Muslim countries, the objective is to keep people under the control of Islamic law through government enforcement. In America, a whole new generation would rather defend terrorists and criminals than be called “racists.”

Having spent most of my life in the Middle East, I am sensitive to recognizing artificially-induced, exhibitionistic, whipped-up outrage — “shaming fits” — forced upon ordinary people by “the system.”
“Shaming,” as in, “Have you no shame?” and frequently mentioned in communications among Muslims, is not looked down on, but lifted up as, for example, a fine way of raising children. It is a point of pride to promote a hatred that has been officially designated by officials or the society. Children are “shamed,” for example, if they want to befriend Christians or Jews – it would be, in America, something like having your child say he wants to befriend people in some horrendous cult. The Arabic words muayra or khajal come close – but the phenomenon is not really about words; it is about a huge, entire force in a culture.
Continue Reading

(To understand the concept “musically,” think of the refrain from the song “Tradition,” in the musical “Fiddler on the Roof, ” substitute “Taqiyya” for the word “Tradition,” and sing to yourselfâ€”or others, to help them understand, too!.)

The great Sunni historian and Koranic commentator Al-Tabari (d. 923), author of one of the earliest and most important Koranic commentaries, explains Koranic verse 3:28, which sanctions “taqiyya,” Islamic religious dissimulation, as follows (translation by Raymond Ibrahim):

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers-except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

Tabari also wrote the following exegesis on Koran 16:106 (the verse states, “Whoso disbelieves in God, after he has believed â€” excepting him who has been compelled, and his heart is still at rest in his belief â€” but whosoever’s breast is expanded in unbelief, upon them shall rest anger from God, and there awaits them a mighty chastisement”)

If anyone is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him because Allah takes his servants as their hearts believe

The authoritative Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam states quite plainly (for all but the most blinkered to understand):

Muhammad himself avoided the Passion motive in religion: in dogmatics by docetism (i.e., an early heretical belief in Christianity that Christ only seemed to have a human body and to suffer and die on the cross; Koran 4:157), in his own life by the Hijra (emigration to Medina) and further by allowing in case of need the denial of the faith (Koran 16:106), friendship with unbelievers (Koran 3:28), and the eating of forbidden foods Koran 6:119; Koran 5:3). This point of view is general in Islam

It is simply not true that the early Christians practiced taqiyya or anything of the sort. Yes, Christians practiced their faith in secret because it was illegal, but when asked if he is a Christian, the Christian must say yes, even if doing so means embracing death. To deny Christ is the mortal sin of cowardice, and while there were many Christians who were guilty of that sin, the Church condemned their sin and forbade them from Communion until they had confessed their sin and done appropriate penance (e.g. spending three years in sackcloth and ashes), although this penance would be cut short if the sinner was in danger of death.

The fact is that Jesus taught us to confess Him before men, even at the cost of our own lives, and if we are not willing to die for Him, then we are not worthy to be called His disciples. Now, that does not mean Christians are to seek death; indeed, a Christian is justified in using every means available to save his own life apart from committing a mortal sin. What it does mean is that it is virtuous to remain publicly steadfast in one’s faith unto death, and that God rewards this virtue with pardon of all sins and removal of all temporal punishments for sin, while those who deny their faith, even under duress, are a disgrace to the name Christian.